Doug McGarrett wrote:
On Saturday 15 September 2007 00:24, Tom Patton wrote:
Maybe this time we can get rid of the point release silliness like Fedora did. Call it 11. Call the next 12, and the next 13....
Felix Miata wrote: true. the .x should be reserved to minor fixes (like the second dvd set recently)
jdd -- In my case, I like the numbering scheme. It has seemed that the x.3 since 6.x has always been the most stable and functional release. I always swear I will wait for the next x.3. But then the next X.0 hits
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 08:32 +0200, jdd wrote: the street and I rush out to buy it. Then I swear again ...
Tom in NM I second that motion! --doug I vote to keep the numbering scheme as it was said by Linus a good while back that the x.0 version is the first stable release of some new addition ie the move from KDE3 to KDE4.
The x.1 release was the newer library, but with a few bug fixes the developers missed for the x.0 release, however those patches might break something else ie whilst still an immprovement it might still be unstable. The x.2 release was really the first release with the new libraries and patches that is considered stable and therefore a base to add other patches onto. The balance of the x.x numbers until y.0 were for fixes that improved the product but did not warrant a new version number ie y.0 as they were not major updates ie KDE3.5 to KDE 3.6 as opposed to KDE 3 to KDE 4. It is for this reason I only ever buy a new boxed set when the release numbers hit x.2. If I had seen an even release number ie a x.4 or x.6, since 9.2, I might have bought it. Regards Hylton -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org